The idea of “indigeneity”, in the context of the Asia Pacific, can take on different interpretations and responses depending on the region. On the etymological level, the term “indigenous” means “born or originating in a particular place” or “native”; however, it is often used in the present time to refer to people who have been colonized and are not able to control their land or culture (Gray, 36). The indigeneity of a group of peoples, in the Asia Pacific context, can conceptually also be defined as people who value community, settled in and established a special connection and history to the land and nature in which they preside as it shapes their culture, belief systems and principles. Some countries may be supportive and help empower indigenous groups and identities, while others may either disregard it or begin to alienate them into a category of “other” (Baird, 504). The interaction with “mainstream” or “colonial” cultures seem to be inevitable and contribute to the definition of indigeneity despite the variations in response.
One of the issues that arises would be definition indigenous populations as the “first” peoples to be born in and inhabit the area in which they preside (Baird). Depending on one’s definition of “first”, variances in the idea of indigeneity can unfold. To illustrate, while the Degar people who are considered indigenous to Vietnam’s Central Highlands have history of inhabiting the isolated highlands prior to the 1800s, the origins of this group can be traced back to migrants from Indonesia, Polynesia, and Burma as evidenced by their language families (Bailey). This can contradict with the etymological definition of being born in a particular place and brings up the question of whether or not indigenous people can be classified as such when their history points to different areas of origin. Another interesting case would be the Maori people in New Zealand as they had also migrated from Polynesia to settle into the uninhabited land that would known to them as Aotearoa. The issue adds another layer of complexity as the land that the Maori had settled in was uninhabited at the time, so in the sense of settling, the Maori could be considered the “first” peoples. The problem with “first” is determining whether first to inhabit, to settle, or to be born in an area would be the settling factor in defining indigeneity.
Another issue that causes variance within the region on indigeneity is the idea that these groups have been conquered or colonized and left with no control of their culture. In the context of Asia, there is the belief by some countries that indigeneity is tied with high levels of European settler colonialism, something countries in Asia believe they had not experienced, and is therefore irrelevant to them (Baird, 501). This was defined as the “salt-water theory”. As a result, some countries in Asia had no trouble signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), but they believed that this did not apply to them. This perspective leads some countries in Asia to acknowledge the indigenous groups in other countries but refuse to recognize the groups within their countries as indigenous as the people in these countries either are all indigenous or not at all to the country. This confusing issue became known as the “Asian Controversy” (Baird 502). The acceptance of this theory by some of the nations in the Asia Pacific create variation in understanding and classification of indigenous groups as it sets specifically European settler colonialism forcing out these groups as one of the determining factors. While this narrow definition on the type of occupation is valid in some cases, it also causes confusion and limits the scope in classifying indigenous groups, creating variance how indigeneity is perceived. For example, the Degar people had been occupied by the French from the 1800s until the end of the French-Indochina War. While the French were occupying the Degar’s land, they respected and even granted the Degar people autonomy (Bailey). However, the Degar’s oppression and forced relocation away from their ancestral lands were caused by the Vietnamese government who took over their land by settling mainstream Vietnamese in their lands until the Degar became the ethnic minority (Nay). Despite these actions being defined in the oppression of indigenous peoples, there is an additional layer of complexity which is the perception that the Degar, in the eyes of the mainstream Vietnamese government, were not Vietnamese, and therefore, they could not be considered “indigenous” to Vietnam (Nay). The issue of including colonialism and oppression in the definition of indigeneity is that these points can be perceived and interpreted differently based on the country and group.
Despite the divergence in opinion on indigeneity and colonialism, there are many consistencies in regards to the perception of these groups such as the importance of land to the identity of these groups. For Indigenous Australia, the concept of “Country” links “peoples, ancestors, place, animals, rocks, plants, stories and songs” (Burarrwanga, 128). The connectedness, or the Kanyini, is important to the Indigenous Australians, and without it, according to an Indigenous Australian Bob Randall, he is nothing (Kanyini). In addressing the importance of community, Indigenous Australians to share food during plentiful seasons of harvest with other localities and hold gatherings where neighbors could exchange goods, meet each other, and exchange music with each other (Pascoe, 22). These aspects of the Indigenous Australian culture demonstrate how the land and community is important in shaping and representing the cultural identity of Indigenous Australia. The Degar peoples of Vietnam also maintain a spiritual connection to the land which is expressed through the development of their religion of animism (the belief that everything has a soul) and performing rituals in order to appease the spirits. The emphasis on community is also evident in their traditional homes which were communal longhouses that could fit around 10-20 people from related kin or extended family (Hays). In New Zealand, the indigenous Maori group had formed a connection with the land and recognized that it must be taken care of in order to maintain balance for the future generations of their genealogical table, or the whakapapa (Kaai, 22). For all three of these groups, despite their geographical distance and different histories, land and community is very sacred and a critical part in shaping their identity and practices which is consistent for the definition of indigeneity in the region of the Asia Pacific.
Overall, the definition of indigeneity has areas of convergence and divergence across the Asia Pacific where there are shared characteristics that shape the identity of these groups, but there is also a lot of space for contradictions and interpretations of other characteristics such as groups being “first” or colonized by specific groups of people. In addition to these issues, there are more layers to the issue as the concept of indigeneity is also greatly affected by personal perceptions by the mainstream cultures, causing further confusion. Because of the varying perceptions by countries in the Asia Pacific, the term, while having some areas of shared characteristics, is interpreted and coined differently depending on the country. In conclusion, the concept of indigeneity is like a palimpsest where the meaning is constantly evolving with and being introduced to the world, and because of that, different interpretations and perceptions are raised that create a divergence from the original meaning while maintaining some core principles and ideas.
Works Cited
Bailey, Raleigh. Montagnards Their History and Culture. Culture Profile, 2002. Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 2002.
Baird, Ian G. “Indigeneity in Asia: an Emerging but Contested Concept.” Asian Ethnicity, vol. 17, no. 4, 2016, pp. 501–505., doi:10.1080/14631369.2016.1193804.
Burarrwanga, Laklak, et al. Welcome to My Country. Allen & Unwin, 2015.
Gray, Andrew. “The Indigenous Movement in Asia.” Indigenous Peoples of Asia, Association for Asian Studies, 1995, pp. 35–58.
Hays, Jeffrey. “Montagnards in Vietnam.” Facts and Details, Facts and Details, 2008, factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Vietnam/sub5_9d/entry-3395.html#chapter-8.
Kaai, Tania. Ki Te Whaiao: an Introduction to Māori Culture and Society. Pearson Longman, 2007.
Kanyini. Dir. Melanie Hogan. Reverb, 2006. Kanopy. Web. 10 Mar. 2019.
Nay, Rong. “Montagnard Human Rights Organization (MHRO).” Montagnard Human Rights Organization MHRO RSS, Montagnard Human Rights Organization MHRO RSS, www.mhro.org/montangards-history.
Pascoe, Bruce, and David Horton. The Little Red Yellow Black Book: an Introduction to Indigenous Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, 2018.
